Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrie D'Rozario Murphy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep - the improvements made during the debate are what differs it from the nom, and it's not keep-worthy per consensus. Non admin closure. Giggy Talk 01:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Barrie D'Rozario Murphy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete was speedied before with less meat on it; now re-created, does a single mention in the "who's news" section of the WSJ confer notability? The article as written seems a little spammy, but regardless, this seems like a typical nn ad agency. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, three reliable sources is not how you presented this article. They won the $100 million United Airlines account despite being a startup, which is pretty much unheard of in the advertising business. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep., the WSJ is the newspaper of record in the field, & there's 2 other good refs. DGG (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The WSJ actually doesn't cover advertising all that well (It's all that fuzzy human factors stuff that gets in the way of parsing 10-Qs.), as the limited coverage shows. The NYT ran a full story, the AdWeek story is from one of the two "of record" publications for the industry (Advertising Age being the other; their story isn't free), and the Chicago Sun-Times is from the city where the United Airlines headquarters is located, so they cover everything the airline does. Crain's also had a story. In any case, well beyond the basic requirements of WP:CORP.--Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, with the addition of the New York Times the article now has 5 credible sources. Dmdaily10 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent improvements to cites by Dhartung et al. Bearian 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.